The Administration and Moderation around here.

The BBQ Pit
101

I do not zink zis word means what you zink it means.

Well, the mods are all Illuminati. But now that I’ve told you, I’ll have to kill you.

Actually, I’ve noticed highly reactive moderating on a couple of occasions. Not enough that I’d call it a change or a pattern–I would be more inclined to chalk it up to new mods breaking in their boots. But this thread and its closing were pretty questionable IMO. This was also TYM’s thread, although I hadn’t noticed that when I started writing this. Anyway, here’s a quick summary:

Johnny L.A. starts thread, asking why people smoke pot. TYM gets antsy (understandably so), closes the thread, and then rather admirably reopens it with what I regarded then as a beautifully succint disclaimer:

A couple of people noted that one of the main reasons they smoked (present or past) pot was for what they perceived as beneficial sexual effects. I said that “stoned sex was never anything special for me” and, a few sentences later, “As far as enhancing the sexual experience, I really preferred DXM.” (Background: DXM is an over-the-counter drug used by what can best be described as a subculture for its recreational and psychedelic effects.) Then:

Thusly, a warning was issued, an apology returned, and a confused objection lobbed in from outside. I then stated that I felt the warning–which was directed at me, and not the first warning I’ve gotten in a drug thread here–was understandable and that if Yookeroo felt differently I urged him/her to discuss it in ATMB rather than endangering the thread by raising more objections.

I thought this was pretty reactive, especially considering that the subject of the warning had retracted his statement, apologized, and urged others not to argue against the mod. I didn’t see how the thread was heading in any “new and unpredictable direction”–I thought the threat had been quelled and we could get back to the OP.

I still think it was pretty cool of TYM to give Johnny L.A. the benefit of the doubt, but it seemed like he was pretty quick to later close the thread when it seemed like there was no longer a threat to law and order. I didn’t see anything objectionable in my behavior or Yookeroo’s, and Yookeroo didn’t come back to say “Fuck you, mods! I’ll talk about whatever drugs I like!” or anything like that.

Actually, I’ve wondered about this. It wasn’t too long ago that it seemed that every ban spawned lots and lots of open discussion in ATMB/GD/IMHO/the Pit. Now, I’ll see a completely harmless post in some thread, check it again a few hours later and see “BANNED” under the poster’s name. I don’t watch the Pit (or any other forum, really) enough to know if these guys are sock puppets or if they’re all posting really bad stuff in places I’m not looking or what, so I usually don’t say anything. But I’ve been seeing a fair bit more banning than usual and I haven’t noticed anywhere near as much discussion of it.

What is the anon board everyone’s talking about? Is it something I missed while off in military service this summer?

I know this isn’t the “Educate fetus on the stuff that happened while he was gone and/or stuff that happened while he was here and he forgot about it” thread, but what Not-So-Recent Unpleasantness?

102

:eek: My reputation precedes me. I walk into a thread and post once and suddenly all the Google ads are about psychedelic drugs.

103

[tangent]
No, it does.
[/tangent]

104

The SDMB complaints department at LiveJournal is an example of an anon board.

105

I’m well aware of the word’s meaning; I just thought that what he was trying to get at was “descend upon”, because if he were really trying to say that the mods were stooping to low levels, his commentary later in that sentence (or the next one) would have rendered “condescend” redundant.

106

No it wouldn’t. I, and I’d wager some of the mods and other posters, read it as saying that the mods were ‘high and mighty’ and didn’t feel that they were accountable to us so that even when they deigned to respond to us mere mortals they still didn’t really show accountability.

Note, I don’t agree with his sentiments, but I don’t think that’s an inconsistent reading.

107

I can’t find this. You give “an example”, but it really sounds like people are talking about a specific board. The SDMB group at LJ doesn’t look like it. Can somebody clear this up for me (perhaps better in private communication, as this thread’s getting a little hijacked…)

108

Why do you hate tweedom, you twaitor?

109

Check your email, fetus.

110

Thanks, to you as well as the other two Dopers who emailed me.

We now return to your regularly scheduled Pit thread.

111

I just had a daydream that contained a witty, erudite and intelligent post calmly laying out a 3 step program for improving moderator-poster communications, creating nonconfrontational posts, and making the perfect piecrust that is oh so flaky and delicious. But the phone rang, and the cat needed attention, and the cookies got done and by the time I got back to the computer, it was gone. So you get this instead.

I’ve seen some threads I enjoyed reading closed for what seemed to me as spurious reasonings. Never upsetting enough to me to warrant a thread about. But still disappointing.

I read the threads on the moderators’ actions and have noticed the same circle the wagons reaction from the staffers. And it seems to be happening here. It’s not callous or condescending. Just…dismissive.

112

“Dismissive” - that’s a good word for the vibe. “These are not the drones you’re looking for.” “We don’t need to discuss this - thread closed.”

113

I know this. You certainly live up to your name.

114

To be fair however, if I were a moderator, I’m certain my tone would be influenced by whether a person’s “constructive advice” was an attack, or something more subtle. It’s human nature to be dismissive if somebody’s comments on our behaviour are delivered in an attacking manner - regardless of whether the message is valid or not.